rubberneck

Regardless of what anyone else says it is refreshing that a major match finally enforced the rulebook to the best of their abilities. I have been to matches where the gun was weighed, I have been to matches where it was put in the box but I have never had the safety mechanisms checked on the gun and I certainly have never had all three done in conjunction with being chrono'd. That includes two Nationals, the Carolina Cup and a dozen or so other major matches. By the looks of it there are a number of shooters who weren't expecting you to do it. I think in the long run it is healthy for the sport. Good for you. Pete

About a month ago I was at the range and one of the club members had a 1.5X4 Nikon scope mounted on a JP rifle. As we all know Nikon makes really good camera's and lenses. This guy let me put a mag through the gun and I was really impressed with the scope. It didn't have all the bells and whistles that a $800-$1200 scope has but for less than $300 you got a lot of scope for your money, and for someone without designs of competiting at the very highest level of the sport it was more than enough to be competitive. YMMV.

FTDR1911 on XBOX360. I only really play hardcore team deathmatch. I got tired of laying laying the wood to someone and them not going down. The only downside is the 13 year olds that think it's cool to kill their own teammates. I have been playing the Beta version of COD5 for the past week and it is pretty damn good. Instead of helicopters at seven consecutive kills you get a pack of wild dogs that are like heat seeking missiles. It's hysterical to watch guys on the other team trying to run away from them.

I can attest to that. The stage that you SO'd at the S&W Championships two years ago had a non-thret tucked behind a threat target. I should know because that was my last stage of the day and I hit the damn thing. At our local matches we will sometimes but a non-threat behind a popper. You wouldn't believe the number of people who see steel and hose.

Sorry, No. They would be considered slide lightening, which is verboten in all IDPA semi-auto divisions. Interesting look. kr The rulebook defines slide lightening as the removal of portions of the slide to gain a competitive advantage. A case could be made with that slide that there hasn't been enough material removed to gain an advantage and that it was done for cosmetic reasons. I'd don't think that slide would be that much lighter than one that had been flat topped and serrated.

in idpa can you shoot long dust cover and bull barrel or does it have to be short dust cover and bushing barrell for esp No bull barrel in a 5" gun. With shorter guns yes. Long dust cover no. Sort of. You can only use a bull barrel if it is 4.2 inches or shorter. You cannot have a traditional commander length gun (4.25 inch barrel) with a bull barrel.

Prayers out.

There are a lot of assumptions going on in this thread. Charles Daly actually did a lot of home work before building these guns. They used really good parts from good manufacturers when building these guns. The president of Charles Daly posts at M4Carbine and been very up front about what their plans are. Several big name trainers (i.e. Larry Vickers) that have gotten samples have commented on well built they are. The prices listed on their website are like every other dealers suggested retail prices and sell for a good deal less.

Has the USPSA board ever approached ESPN about including a match in the X Games? I know ESPN used to have shooting disciplines in their great outdoor games so I doubt they would be reflexively anti-gun. I was just curious if the subject was ever broached.

Very first stage of my very first USPSA I got swept by a shooter. The stage required the shooter to start facing uprange at the start signal the shooter drew and as he was turning and I had the experience of looking down the barrel of a loaded XD. The RO (a friend of the shooter) didn't DQ the shooter. I filed a complaint with the MD and the AC. I don't know what happened to the complaint as I have never been back to that club. SO'ing an IDPA match at a local club we have a guy that everyone knows is an accident waiting to happen. He finishes the stage, I tell him to unload and show clear he stops for a second like a deer caught in a head light and turns to look at me as if I had just issued a range command in Greek. As he does so his muzzle follows his eyes right to me. After being DQ'd he had the audacity to blame me for it. I was SO'ing another SO who put one into the ground about a foot and a half in front of his right foot during a draw. I have never seen a guy so embarrassed in my life. He practically ran to the the car in shame. There are others but in the immortal words of Albert Einstein "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

I see it a little differently. I view the intent of FTDR as a punishment for Failing to do the right thing. It is for acts that push the envelope on a match DQ for cheating (but don't quite rise to the level of a DQ) or for unsportsmanlike conduct. IMHO The problem with the FTDR is that it often requires the SO to assume what was going on in the shooters mind. There is a difference between making a mental mistake and intentionally using an inappropriate technique to gain an advantage. I believe the intent of the FTDR is to punish intentional acts not mental mistakes. I could see how some would apply at FTDR. I wouldn't have. Either way you are forced to assume something you can't know for sure. I won't call it unless it is blatantly obvious and I am not shy about making tough calls.

Drop turners- OK in IDPA. No FTN on disappearing targets. For the most part you will get a FTN on a swinger, but not always. If for instance there is a no shoot or a prop directly in front of the swinger that causes the swinger to disappear when it stops moving than technically you can't be assessed a FTN.

That is the only appropriate penalty IMHO. If a shooter is going to do something that stupid and reckless with a loaded firearm I don't see how anyone can trust him to be safe ever again. He doesn't have the judgment necessary to play with a loaded gun.

I have had a shooter or two ask why I am shooting a gun that everyone who has spent time in the military knows is crap. Oh well. I bought one just because I didn't want to be another Glock shooter in production. I don't mean that to disparage Glock shooters but sometimes taking the road less traveled is a reward in and of itself.

I shoot a Vertec 92G in SSP and production. For me it is the only Beretta I'd buy. That isn't a knock on the other Beretta's but the straight backstrap, the ability to replace the front and rear sights and the beveled magwell makes it a fit for me and what I want in a "game" gun. I don't see what the XD has to do with Beretta's. I own one and while it is certainly a good gun but that isn't what the poster asked about.

Y'know, I don't really think this is a concern. Considering how often the Supreme Court considers Second Amendment cases (70 years since the last one) and that any new decision would have to pass muster to even make it to the SC, and that it would then be up against this decision of today....honestly, I think this is it for our lifetimes. With respect, today's decision was very limited in scope. There will be a boat load of cases in the next few years that will have to codify what is and isn't permissible based on the Heller finding. A shift in the majority for instance may find a court unwilling to incorporate the 2nd amendment under the 14th. A new majority may find that it is reasonable to restrict all semi-auto handguns as long as revolvers are permitted. In his decision Scalia said explicitly that there is too much ground to cover in one single decision and that additional suits will be needed to flesh out the entire meaning of the second amendment. We need a favorable court during that process or this ruling is next to useless.

i'm not a lawyer, and clearly i'm missing something in your question... so, a question for you...who did the 2nd amendment apply to prior to 1868 (when the 14th amendment was ratified). why do you think that question (your question above) is still unanswered? throughout the oral arguments and the majority decision (i havent read the dissents), the phrase "the people" is used, and even defined. in addition, there were multiple references to other amendments that use "people" or "the people." why would you think that heller would only apply to "the people" of DC? if tomorrow PA passed a law exactly like DC's law, don't you think it would be (eventually) overturned based on the heller precedent? couldnt you win such a case with pee wee herman as your lawyer? Because the Bill of Rights only placed limits on the Federal Government. That has changed over they years as the Supreme Court has incorporated parts of the Bill of Rights to the States under the 14th Amendment. Sadly the Court has never incorporated the Second Amendment to the States. As noted in a footnote the Court has explicitly declined to do so on two different occassions since the ratification of the 14th amendment. As it stands today the States are not bound by the 2nd Amendment, and since this case was brought by a resident of the District of Columbia, a Federal District, todays decision only applied to the laws in DC. It doesn't take a genius to see where this is headed if the court ever hears a case involving a state law but until the court address the states specifically it is a moot point. Scalia hinted that such a suit would find a favorable majority if it were to get that far, but since that legal question was beyond the scope of the case in front of him he could not address it. Well he could but then he would be a Judicial activist like Justice Breyer and Ginsburg and we all know how Scalia feels about them.

If I ever run into Alan Gura or Dick Heller drinks and dinner are on me.

The court did just that today. While it mentioned hunting it also clearly addressed the self-defense issue. As of today the 2nd amendment clearly protects your right to own a gun for self defense.

I really hope that my finely tuned sarcasm meter isn't on the fritz as that would be one of the silliest things I have ever read on this board.

It isn't an IDPA thing.

You are missing a couple of things. The first is that it isn't just 13,000 men and women shooting in Iraq or Afghanistan. Our troops world wide use ammo in training every day, and even support units shoot from time to time. Those not in Iraq and Afghanistan are either in some phase of pre-deployment training or deployed elsewhere at any given time. The second thing is that the ammo produced by our government isn't being used just by our troops. It is sold to allies or given away. Keep in mind that we have troops actively engaged in combat operations in places other than Iraq and Afghanistan. We have soldiers in places like the PI, Colombia and the Horn of Africa actively waging counter insurgency operations. The billion round figure wasn't pulled out of thin air. It is a number used by the Pentagon.

They aren't a true match barrel as they aren't oversized. Other than that they are a solid tube and the price is hard to beat if you aren't hung up on having a fitted barrel.

The cost isn't being driven by the price of lead, copper, gas or even greed. The price is getting driven by a lack of capacity. It is as simple as that. Every manufacturer is running at 100% capacity right now and is struggling to keep up with demand. If we weren't fighting two wars at the same time and the military wasn't eating their way through over a billion rounds a month in support of those wars we would have a hell of a lot more capacity available to cater to the civilian market. Even though most of the companies don't directly support small munitions production for the military they are in the position to have to support a larger portion of the civilian market. How many more bullets can zero crank out a month? How many cases can Starline make? It comes to the point where they have nothing left to give but people still want their products. In this case we have too many dollars chasing too few goods, i.e. inflation.

I was told that he closed his shop a couple of months ago. That is probably why you guys haven't and probably never will hear back from him.